Sample-Answer With Counterclaim (Final) Vic Ceballos (1)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 4 KALIBO, AKLAN

GREGORIO ALFREDO ROBERTO and MA. RITA GLORIA both surnamed SANSON Plaintiff, -versus-

CIVIL CASE No. 8076 FOR: QUIETING OF TITLE

HEIRS OF ROBERTO TIROL, JR Namely: MARTIN ROBERTO G. TIROL ET AL, Defendants X----------------------X ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM Defendants, through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully file their Answer in response to the Complaint of the Plaintiffs and interpose as well as their counterclaim against the latter, to wit: ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS 1.

Paragraphs 1a and 1b are admitted;

2.

Paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3a, 3c, 3e are denied for lack of

information or knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof;

3.

Paragraph 3b is denied insofar as the allegations that

Plaintiffs took possession of the areas that are described as Lot Nos. 5350-N and 5350-K in a manner that was in the concept of owner, openly, adversely and continuously are concerned, since Defendants are without any knowledge or information sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof; 4. But insofar as the allegation in paragraph 3b is concerned that the purported contiguous areas they actually took possession of were surveyed on the ground by a court commissioner sometime in 2005, copy of the resulting survey plan was attached as annex “C” of the Complaint, the same is denied because the said survey plan was conducted only for purposes of determining the delineations of Lot Nos. 5350-N and 5350-K and for no other purpose, as a direct offshoot of civil case no. 157-M entitled, Martin Roberto G. Tirol vs. Spouses Gregorio and Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson; 5.

Save for the legal provisions quoted in paragraph 3c, the rest

of the allegations is denied for lack of information or knowledge sufficient to form a reasonable belief thereof; 6.

The allegation in paragraph 4 is denied as the same is an

erroneous conclusion made by Plaintiffs; 7.

Other than the allegations in paragraphs 5a and 5b that a

Contact of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint) was entered into by the parents of Plaintiffs and the late Roberto Tirol, Jr., the rest of the allegations is denied, the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder; 2

8.

The allegations in par. 5 (actually, the second par. 5 on page

4 of the Complaint there being an erroneous numbering) insofar as a Deed of Donation (annex “F” of the Complaint) was executed by the late Roberto H. Tirol Sr. in favor of defendants is concerned, is admitted but the rest of the allegations is denied, the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder; 9.

The allegations in par. 5 found in page 5 of the Complaint

(note that there are three (3) paragraphs in the Complaint that have been numbered “5”) in that Defendants have claimed that Plaintiffs have encroached on lots 5350-N and 5350-K are denied, the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder; 10.

The allegations in paragraph 6 in that, Defendants have made

an admission of the adverse possession by the Plaintiffs of lots 5350-N and 5350-K which possession ripened into ownership by way of acquisitive prescription thereby making their total land area 10, 578 square meters are denied the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses; 11.

The allegations in paragraph 6b are denied the truth being

that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder; 12.

With respect to the allegation in paragraph 7 in that a court

decision was rendered, copy thereof was attached as annex “C” of the Complaint, the same is admitted, subject however to the affirmative and special defenses stated hereunder;

3

13.

The allegations in paragraph 7 on page 6 (actually this is the

second paragraph erroneously numbered as “par. 7”) are denied the truth being that stated in the affirmative and special defenses hereunder; Affirmative and Special Defenses 14.

The Complaint filed by Plaintiffs is nothing but a malicious

lawsuit calculated to harass the Defendants, not to mention that it does not state a cause of action and is a clear resort to forum-shopping, thereby rendering it dismissible outright; No Cloud of Title 15.

Too, no cloud of title exists nor is there a need for a quieting

of title that affects all the lots mentioned by Plaintiffs in the Complaint which are lots nos. 5350-B, 5350-F, 5350-N and 5350-K. The first two (2) lots (5350-B and 5350-F) are not being contested by any of the parties here, whether concerning their title or whoever is entitled to possession thereof. The second two (2) lots (5350-N and 5350-K), on the other hand, were the subject of the Deed of Donation (annex “F” of the Complaint) by the late Roberto Tirol, Jr. to Defendants and were the subject of the Contract of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint) between Plaintiffs’ parents on one hand and Defendants’ late father on the other. As a result of the said donation, tax declarations over the said parcels of land were issued in favor of Defendants; 16.

After a painstaking review of the Complaint, it is apparent

from the allegations therein that what Plaintiffs seek from the Honorable Court is to reverse or at least render inutile the court decision in Civil 4

Case No. 157-M, titled, Martin Roberto G. Tirol vs. Spouses Gregorio and Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson, which decision has awarded possession of lot numbers 5350-N and 5350-K and has become executory; 17.

Said decision in the aforesaid eviction suit has reached the

Supreme Court where the Plaintiffs either by themselves or through the corporate entity they represent, The Pearl of Boracay Landholdings Inc. intervened. Incidentally, the judgment favoring Defendants was affirmed in toto; 18.

Likewise, it has become clear in the Complaint that Plaintiffs

are simply all-out to restrain Defendants from taking over the possession of lots nos. 5350-N and 5350-K. In fact, Plaintiffs and their parents have tried every trick in our books just to frustrate the rightful and legal claim of possession by Defendants over said lots; Unceasing Various Legal Attacks 19.

While the instant complaint is one titled for quieting of title or

for removal of cloud of title, their parents and Plaintiffs themselves or through the corporate entity they represent, The Pearl of Boracay Landholdings, Inc. have been unceasingly resorting to all sorts of legal actions just so Defendants become unsuccessful in their bid to regain possession of lots nos. 5350-N and 5350-K from the parents of Plaintiffs, the latter having entered into the said Contract of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint) with the late father of Defendants; 20.

It will be noted that Plaintiffs’ parents have filed a case for the

cancellation of the Deed of Donation (annex “F” of the Complaint) 5

affecting the same parcels of land, docketed as Civil Case No.: 7342, titled, “Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson, joined by her husband, Gregorio Sanson vs. Roberto G. Martin Tirol et al” (photocopy thereof is attached herewith as annexes “A” to “A-10”) where the prayer in the complaint was as follows: xxx

xxx

xxx

“WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the Deed of Donation made Annex “A” of this complaint the new tax declarations issued in the name of the defendants covering Lots 5350-K and Lot 5350-N be declared null and void “ab initio” and thereby ordering defendants to jointly and severally pay plaintiffs: a) b) c)

One Million Pesos as moral damages; P50,000.00 as litigation expenses; and P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees plus P10,000.00 as appearance fee.

Plaintiffs further pray that upon filing of this complaint a Temporary Restraining Order be issued and that the case be set for hearing for Preliminary Injunction which should thereafter be issued and made permanent after the final decision, thereby directing defendants to cease and desist from further taking any action which would deprive (sic) plaintiff Maria Lourdes Tirol-Sanson of her rights as co-owner of Lot 5350 more specifically those portions which the defendants refer (sic) to as Lot 5350-K and Lot 5350-N. Plaintiffs pray for such other relief and remedies as the Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises. Iloilo City for Kalibo, November 25, 2004.” xxx 21.

xxx

xxx

On another occasion and unrelenting, Plaintiffs’ parents again,

filed another lawsuit against Defendants this time assailing the said Contract of Lease (annex “D” of the Complaint) docketed and titled, Civil 6

Case No. 7956 and titled, “Spouses Gregorio and Ma. Lourdes Sanson vs. Martin Roberto G.Tirol” (photocopy thereof is attached herewith as annexes “B” to “B-4”) and the prayer of plaintiffs therein is quoted herein verbatim, to wit: xxx

xxx

xxx

“WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment or order: a) Declaring the Contract of Lease as Null and void. b) Ordering defendant to pay plaintiffs two million pesos actual damages, P100,000.00 atty’s fees and P10,000,000.00 moral damages. Plaintiffs further pray for such other remedies as may be just and equitable in the premises. Roxas City for Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines. December 7, 2006. xxx

xxx

xxx

Petition for Certiorari

22.

Realizing that they were losing ground and with the

impending demolition of the building located in lot no. 5350-K being imminent, they have filed a petition for certiorari (photocopy thereof is attached herewith as annexes “C” to “C-11”) to challenge the court’s order of demolition of the said building they used to occupy and erected on one of the subject lots, 5350-K. The following was their prayer in their petition, to wit: “PRAYER

7

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court, to render judgment, as follows: 1. Issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the respondents, and after due notice and hearing effectively enjoin the respondents from implementing the Writ of Demolition against the properties of the petitioner; 2. Declaring the decision of the Honorable Public Respondent dated July 22, 2005 (affirmed on appeal with minor modification) ineffectual against petitioner, which is NOT a party thereto; 3. Ordering the respondents to, jointly and severally, pay petitioner the sum of P200,000.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees and P10,000.00 per appearance in Court; 4. Ordering the respondents to, jointly and severally, pay petitioner exemplary damages, the determination of which is left to the sound judgment of this Court;” (Boldface printing for emphasis) xxx 23.

xxx

xxx

This was resolved by the Regional Trial Court, presided by

Judge Montalid Patnubay Jr., where the said Petition was dismissed for Plaintiffs’ corporation miserable failure to prove that it was entitled to injunctive reliefs and insinuating that one of the Plaintiffs herein, Rita Sanson, on several times during her cross-examination was lying to the court;

Third-Party Claim

24.

Undeterred by legal pronouncements that the said Contract of

Lease was valid, regular and legal, and that Plaintiffs’ parents were in default in their monthly rentals to Defendants for more than a decade, Plaintiffs, through their corporate entity, have attempted to block, though 8

in vain, the execution of the decision upholding said lease contract and the right to repossess the said lots, by filing a Third-Party Claim dated July 18, 2009 supported by a duly notarized Secretary’s Certification (photocopy thereof is attached herewith as annexes “D” to “D-2”) but which was rejected by the ejectment court. The full text of the said thirdparty claim is quoted hereinbelow to wit: “THIRD PARTY CLAIM I, MARIA RITA GLORIA T. SANSON, of legal age, Filipino and duly elected and qualified Corporate Secretary of the PEARL OF BORACAY LANDHOLDINGS CORPORATION, with principal address at E. Lopez Street, Jaro, Iloilo City, after having been duly sworn, hereby depose and state: 1. The true and actual possessor of Lot No. 5350-N with an area of 6,980 square meters and Lot No. 5350-K with an area of 1,156 square meters all located at Balabag, Boracay, Malay, Aklan is the PEARL OF BORACAY LANDHOLDINGS CORPORATION, which is not a party to the above-numbered Civil Case. Copy of the SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE attesting to the authority of the undersigned to execute this “THIRD-PARTY CLAIM” is hereto attached as Annex “A”. Quezon City, Metro Manila, for Buruanga, Akaln, July 18, 2009. (Sgd.) MARIA RITA GLORIA T. SANSON Third-Party Claimant” (Boldface printing for emphasis) No Legal or Equitable Title

25.

In the afore-cited two (2) cases, it is unmistakable that

Plaintiffs’ parents challenged the legal title of Defendants and the latter’s right to possession over the said lots. Stated otherwise, Plaintiffs and 9

their parents and the corporation they own, who incidentally have been alternating in filing a barrage of lawsuits against Defendants, have only one agenda, which is to stop at all cost Defendants’ attempts to take over the possession of said lots, particularly lot 5350-K where a bigger portion of one of the buildings of The Pearl of the Pacific Resort is erected on. Said resort is owned by the Pearl of Boracay Landholdings Inc., where the majority shareholders are no other than the family of Plaintiffs’ thereby making it really a family-owned corporation;

26.

Under our existing laws, to be able to bring an action to quiet

title to land or any interest therein, “the plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action.” (Art. 477 of the New Civil Code);

27.

Defendants most respectfully submit that the Complaint

hardly qualifies for a quieting of title because they have not established equitable or legal title to the parcels of land in question;

28.

By their own admission in their Complaint, it was with the

consent of their grandfather or by mere tolerance of the latter that Plaintiffs were allowed to build structures on the south-western portion of lot 5350 but without specifying saying if it was on 5350-N or 5350-K. The fact that their possession is by mere tolerance is anathema to the concept of equitable or legal title under the rules on quieting of title;

Forum-shopping

10

29.

By filing this legal action, it is crystal clear Plaintiffs have only

resorted to the contemptuous act of forum-shopping. Significantly too, the issues in this case are also bound by the principle of res judicata, as there are already rulings by various courts awarding possession of the subject lots to Defendants;

30.

As discussed elsewhere herein, Plaintiffs and their parents

have used all legal remedies available just so they will not be booted out of lots 5350-N and 5350-K;

31.

Not only have they attacked the Deed of Donation, the

instrument that transferred ownership of the aforesaid lots to Defendants from their grandfather, Roberto H. Tirol, Sr. but also the Contract of Lease that Plaintiffs’ parents entered into with Defendant’s late father, Roberto Tirol, Jr.;

32.

This time around, they have filed this suit for alleged quieting

of title in the hope that what they were not able to get from the courts through all those legal maneuvers they have resorted to thus far, they will be able to achieve this time;

33.

But in all likelihood, Defendants respectfully submit, this legal

action for quieting of title is destined also to be doomed as the causes of actions and prayers are really no different from the previous legal actions they have already filed so far and have been unsuccessful. For Plaintiffs, legal victory has been elusive as they really have no reason to continue

11

being in possession of the subject lots much less own the lots that have never been given to them; By Way of Counterclaim 34.

Due to the malicious filing of this instant suit, Defendants

have hired the services of the undersigned counsel for an agreed amount of Philippine Pesos: Five Hundred Thousand (PHP 500,000.00) and have suffered sleepless nights and besmirched reputation which when quantified in monetary terms is in the amount of Philippine Pesos: Five Hundred Thousand (PHP 500,000.00) PRAYER WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Defendants most respectfully pray for the dismissal of the complaint and the award of counterclaim to them. Other reliefs are likewise prayed for.

EXPLANATION Copy of this pleading was sent to the opposing counsel through registered mail as personal service is impracticable. Quezon City, December 10, 2010.

12

C E B A L L O S L A W

§

F I R M

Counsel for Defendants Unit 3E Agcor Building 335 Katipunan Ave., Loyola Heights 1108 Quezon City, Metro Manila

PONCEVIC M. CEBALLOS PTR No. 3212580 / 01-06-2010 / Quezon City IBP LRN 02224 / 1-16-2001 / Caloocan City Roll of Attorneys 33018 MCLE Exemption no. III-00827

Copy Furnished: NOEL C. DUCUSIN Unit 2311, 23rd Floor Herrera Tower Valero corner V.A. Rufino Sts. Salcedo Village, City of Makati

13